One of the most striking elements of the response to the talks that I have been giving on university campuses all over the country is the never-yielding unwillingness of Muslim questioners to admit even the smallest point. They will dismiss the evidence that I bring from authoritative Islamic sources of the jihad imperative to subjugate non-Muslims under the rule of Islamic law as the ravings of a few extremists, not hesitating to repudiate any authority, no matter how influential it may be in the Islamic world.
This may seem to be a canny tactic, as most of the non-Muslims in any given audience have no idea who is an authoritative voice in Islam and who isn't, and so it gives the impression that I am quoting marginal people to whom the vast majority of Muslims don't listen. But as an approach it carries with it some serious risks: anyone in the audience who does know anything about Islamic theology and law, and about who the authoritative voices are in the Islamic world, will know they are lying. Also, anyone who is reasonably well informed about the extent of jihad activity worldwide, from Europe to Indonesia, will wonder just how tiny this Tiny Minority of Extremists™ really is.
I'm tempted to delete out certain words and phrases and replace "Muslims" with "Mormons" and "Islamic" with "Mormon" and take in the uncanny similarities.
Typing this out it also strkes me that xian apologists are the same, too. I suppose the only difference is Islamists tend to resolve their differences, ultimately, with violence. They do, indeed, have the final word in a very sobering way.
To Mormons' credit, they at least are peaceful... And that has to be respected, and I respect it.